Detention justified amidst apprehensions of public disorder due to unauthorized construction leading to fatalities.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench, comprising Justices Abdul Moin and Babita Rani, upheld the preventive detention of Sunil Kumar Gupta, alias Sunil Chain, under the National Security Act, 1980. The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition challenging Gupta's detention, asserting the legality and necessity of the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Mathura, on July 2, 2025.
The court was tasked with examining the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, as directed by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Gupta, had been detained following an unauthorized construction activity that resulted in the collapse of several houses, leading to three deaths and widespread panic among the public. The court found that the incident constituted a disturbance of public order, rather than merely a law and order issue, justifying the preventive detention under the NSA.
The bench also addressed several contentions raised by the petitioner, including the alleged delay in processing his representation against the detention, the validity of a detention order while the petitioner was already in custody, and the consideration of his criminal history in determining the detention. The court found no unexplained or deliberate delay in the authorities' actions and emphasized the necessity of preventive detention to avert potential public disorder upon the petitioner's release on bail.
The judgment reaffirmed the distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order,' citing precedents from the Supreme Court and emphasizing the broader community impact necessary for an act to qualify as a disturbance to public order. The court noted that the unauthorized construction had not only affected the immediate victims but had also instilled fear and disrupted societal peace, thereby justifying the detention.
The ruling also underscored the importance of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction in preventive detention cases, which cannot be substituted by the court's own satisfaction. The court concluded that the detention order was based on relevant grounds and was in alignment with the objectives of the National Security Act, ensuring public safety and order.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 can be justified even when the detenue is already in custody if there is a reasonable apprehension of release on bail and likelihood of engaging in activities prejudicial to public order.
Statutory provision(s): National Security Act, 1980 Sections 3, 8; Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 105.
